Canterbury Tales of Dhimmitude: Archbishop Ready for Sharia
Remember this next time someone tells you Christian values are the best defense against the spread of Islamism: the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the head of the Anglican church, believes that the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK “seems unavoidable”. (Full transcript of his BBC interview on Sharia law here.)
Williams isn’t of course referring to the Islamist-imperialist dream of the entire U.K being placed under Sharia law, but rather he’s backing the idea, promoted by some in the UK Muslim community, of allowing Muslims to settle some aspects of family and “personal status” laws in Sharia courts.
Williams says Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty” (he doesn’t say why not) and rejects an approach to law where “there’s one law for everybody and that’s all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts — I think that’s a bit of a danger.” He doesn’t say what is “dangerous” about the idea of the law applying equally to all.
Before we take a look at the fascinating Anglican-Islamic marriage of convenience, perhaps let us take a quick reality check. Sharia in the UK isn’t going to happen and the response has been encouragingly negative.
No, Sharia won’t be implemented in any formal way in the UK. Parliament will not allow it; British politicians aren’t going to give their approval to Islamic courts. No, the real problem here is that Rowan Williams has given hope to that minority of Muslims who do dream of having their own divorce laws and so on. By promising something which is unobtainable, he teases radical Islamists into believing they are being cheated of something they might reasonably expect to be given and gives them another “grievance” to complain about.
He also is giving more strength to religious conservatives within the Muslim community at a time when the aim of all reasonable people should be to weaken those reactionaries and strengthen their secular, democratic opponents. Religious conservatives in the Muslim community in the U.K will be able to respond to criticisms of Sharia from, say, womens’ organizations by pointing to Williams and noting how even the liberalized, secularized Anglican church sees Sharia as something reasonable. They will be able to use his comments to give credibility to their efforts to consolidate backward practices from Pakistan or Bangladesh within their communities.
On one level, the infamously woolly Archbishop’s ludicrous intervention is part of the final death throes of a failed liberal multiculturalism which has stressed difference over commonality and exceptionalism over universalism. On another, it is a continuation of the British state’s accommodation with religious privilege, a policy that gives the Archbishop, as head of the established church, his “import” and political significance along with his Bishops with their automatic places in the unelected second chamber – the House of Lords. It is such an accommodation that lays behind the Blasphemy Laws in the U.K, which, while rarely used, are just the kind of legislation that those offended by cartoons would dearly love to see protect their sensitivities.
The broader significance of the Archbishop’s words is hinted at when he talks about other religions:
We have orthodox Jewish courts operating in this country; not to mention the issues as I mentioned earlier — not to mention the questions about how the consciences of Catholics, Anglicans and others who have difficulty about issues like abortion are accommodated within the law; so the whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways in which the law of the land pays respect to custom and community; that’s already there.
I have no idea what Williams is referring to when he talks about abortion. The abortion law in the U.K is the law, and while there are plenty of people who would like to change it, there aren’t many who would suggest that they be exempt from that law due to their religious beliefs. The opponents of the UK’s liberal abortion law attempt to change it through the democratic process and changing the law rather than creating exemptions. But it is hard to argue against such an ill-thought out and barely expressed view.
The vagueness of Williams’ argument fuels my suspicion that he quite likes the idea of Muslims and Jews having their own courts so that Christians can create their own exemptions. Far from being a bulwark against Islamism, the leader of the Church of England appears to see potential in the spread of Sharia.
If there is to be a change in the U.K in response to talk of Sharia courts and limitations of free speech such as “religious hatred” laws then it should be to remove the basis for claims of “double-standards.” We should see a move towards the full separation of church and state in the UK, the disestablishment of the Church of England and the removal of the Bishops (including the foolish Archbishop) from the political process.
A strong and even-handed secular state is the best defense against the re-emergence of clerical politics.
“Jimmy Bradshaw” is the pseudonym of a popular Social Democrat.
This is nothing short of the call for the dissolution of the UK, and British society.
Sadly, as moronic as this gentleman is, his prognostication about the inevitability of Sharia is simply hindsight.
We have suicidally allowed Muslims into the West without understanding the basis of their hideous religion. For example, once the Muslims establish themselves in an infidel area, they consider the ground underneath them to belong to Islam. Permanently. A Muslim community represents a fait accompli, a triumph for Islam, a conquest won.
Now if we set about dislodging them from our soil before they become even more entrenched, then there is hope that we can stop their Jihad. If we don’t muster the will, fueled first by an understanding of their Islamic intent to destroy us and replace our society with Islam — then we are condemning our children to live in Beirut, or Sderot, or anyplace where Muslims rampage for Islam.
Already Paris and London have “no-go zones” where Muslims have established tiny proto-Beiruts and proto-Sderots. They are growing organically without any impediment — and we are shrinking into ourselves without understanding that we are already under assault. The first Muslim that set foot on our soil was waging war. Now he has been joined by tens of millions of fellow Muslims, and completely with our own suicidal connivance. It is insane. It must stop.
Just curious, but how does the ABC feel about the introduction of English Common Law into Iran?
Will all due respect:
And what, pray tell, makes you think the current Archbishop exemplifies “Christian values”? I think his are more of the vaguely agnostic, liberal multiculturalism variety.
If I may be blunt – and I may – I’d like to propose that even engaging in this wretched vocabulary (e.g. multiculturalism) is ipso facto defeat. Instead, let us ignore it. And if some barbarian who lives by the grace of our government and in the midst of our pursuit and preservation of freedom starts haranguing us about the virtues of his 10th century legal requirements, we do not argue with him we simply say:
No – now f*ck off and go away.
End of discussion. End of story.
One of the major events that led to the end of the western Roman Empire was the Romans decision to allow German communities to settle in Roman territory.
When one society no longer believes in itself it is soon replaced by another. I see a future of emigration, repopulation, conversion, and futile final stands. America’s future may parallel the Byzantine’s past.
I’m sorry, but the man is a self-described “hirsute old lefty.” In 42 years of living, I have yet to meet one who wasn’t a coward, nay a pussy. If he had a shred of decency and moral authority remaining, he would resign his position of authority. But he won’t because, in the end, “it” is all about “him” and he is presently holding the best job he could ever get.
Folks might like to read UCLA constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh’s take on this issue.
Volokh dismisses the duress women face in sharia, thus showcasing his complete ignorance where sharia is concerned. Every place which claims to enforce Islamic law cracks down on female behavior down to the most minute detail.
When an immigrant woman comes to the US with no grasp of English and finds the Texas Islamic Court in business the term “alternative dispute resolution” won’t pop into her head.
But you know, I’m getting sick of fighting these battles for women who’d rather obsess over Augusta National or Hillary!
To suggest that Rowan Williams speaks for Christianity is as foul reasoned as anything Williams himself said.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23436203-details/Adoption+of+Islamic+Sharia+law+in+Britain+is+'unavoidable'%2C+says+Archbishop+of+Canterbury/article.do
The Evening Standard has an additional tidbit — nearly a month ago, one of Williams’ underlings, the Bishop of Rochester, pointed out that there were already Islamic “no-go zones” in London –this fact was so offensive to the Muslim community (since they like it far better when we don’t notice their hideousness), that he received death threats. Exactly one month later, the Archbishop comes out calling for Sharia in the UK:
“The clergyman was put under police protection last month after receiving death threats following his claims that parts of Britain are ‘no-go areas’ for non-Muslims.”
Lunacy. Cowardice of the highest order. Craven stupidity.
By what right does any minority impose its religious values on the majority? This is ludicrous. If these muslims are so hell-bent on living under sharia, there are plenty of places in the world where they would be welcome – all they have to do is GO!! If the Brits do not stand tall on this one, they are through. But I have faith in the Brits. They are too logical and too civilized to let this madness continue.
Isn’t there a law, Parkinson’s I believe, that states that people get promoted up to their level of incompetance where they stay? I’m sure I’ve got it wrong around the edges, but I would say that this jerk is the poster child for that law.
The Archbishop seems to misunderstand Islam. Proponents of Sharia do not see any distinction between religion and state. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not any.
AQ-types consider the conduct of secular government in predominantly Muslim countries to be a form of apostasy and punishable by death. This subject actually serves as a good entrypoint for discussion of jihad.
We are constantly told, especially by the various talking head “experts” on the news (such as Michael Scheuer), that AQ is waging defensive jihad to combat the imposition of Western, secular ways on the Muslim community, or Umma. This is true. They are doing that. However, they are also doing something else: offensive jihad. This goes hand-in-hand with defensive jihad and has parallel interests.
Offensive jihad seeks to impose Muslim rule (Sharia) on the world. (By world, I mean the planet between Venus and Mars, in totality, ie, every square inch of it.) This does not necessarily mean the conversion of everyone to Islam by force, but rather the creation of Islamic states in which non-Muslims are forced into second-class citizen status, or Dhimmitude. We know that the AQ-types seek to impose such rule in Western countries through a sophisticated, special-purpose intelligence gathering technique called “reading what they write in their statements to each other and the press.” (If you ever want to get really far ahead of the MSM in understanding AQ, just try the aforementioned technique.)
As far as the idea that Christian values are the best counter to Islamism, I would take the following issues with it:
1. The phrase “Christian values” is pretty wimpy. If someone means Christian faith, then they should say Christian faith. The nature of Christianity is such that faith is a specific ingredient in Christian belief. The values themselves are not considered sufficient on their own.
2. While I, being a Christian, heartily recommend Christianity, I think that with regard to the very narrow concern of stopping people from blowing themselves up in crowds and such, ANY more peaceful religious beliefs will do(Hari-Krishnas, whatever…)
In any case, one combats an idea by confronting the proponents of that idea in a forum witnessed by the public eye at large and presenting a refutation that is quickly and easily understood, reasonable, and sufficiently solid to withstand rebuttal. One does not do it by caving in to the adversary.
Can the Archbishop name a single person of significant positive contribution in the Bible whose primary, defining characteristic was one of have linguini for a spine?
Put another way, is he familiar with the line, “I come not in peace but to deliver a sword”?
I see that the Archbishop is following in the fine traditions of Neville Chamberlain. What a craven poltroon!
The next step will be the concession that Muslims may only be tried under shari’a.
The step after that will be the imposition of the jizya (perhaps disguised as the re-direction of property from childless dhimmis to the umma).
Some have scoffed at the concept of a Muslim threat, asking how they could possibly invade the U.S. To them I reply, “Could you tell me when the Caliphate’s armies landed at Dover?”
Pixelkiller :
Isn’t there a law, Parkinson’s I believe, that states that people get promoted up to their level of incompetance where they stay?
That’s the Peter Principle; Parkinson’s Law is that
“Work expands to fill the time available to complete it.”
Note to JB: if a fool can’t sit in the House of Lords, where can he sit?
Oh btw his comments about Jewish courts are wrong and disengenous. But then again it comes from Williams’ no shock there.
I’m pleased with the incredible backlash there has been concerning Rowan (Sharia) William’s stupid remarks.
He has not done moderate Muslims any favours, and instead nailed his flag with the more Islamist tendencies within British islam.
The way 95% of the British population have flipped over his comments shows Williams is a dangerous character for social cohesion. He could have started a riot; or worse we may have seen lynchings.
He has swelled the ranks of racist groups, and done more harm to the Church of England than an atheist could achieve in a hundred years.
Rowan just wants to hang out with the bad boys.
The phrase “Christian values” is pretty wimpy.
I’m pretty sure that somewhere in the history of Christianity, some theologian or other proved that God did not put us on this earth to bow down to a bunch of Muslims. And if no theologian did, I’m saying it right now. “God did not put me on this earth to bow down to some smelly caliph.” The Gospel according to Venividivici says Muslims can go take a flying leap, preferably into a deep canyon.
I hate Islam so much, if there are secular laws that happen to coincide with Sharia law, I want those laws changed, just to show those Muslims we don’t have anything in common with them.
The next step will be the concession that Muslims may only be tried under shari’a.
Seriously, because if there’s one thing I know about Muslims, it’s that they don’t take anything relating to their religion half-assed. They’ll be agitating for this before the ink is dry on the laws allowing them to use Sharia under certain circumstances.
http://www.di2.nu/200802/09.htm
Just more cause for separation from church and state and everyone should embrace it, that way when someone comes up saying “This is my religion, and it should be law” just laugh in their face, say it’s a free country, and they can live their religion and you can live yours.
Letting any religion control law is just stupid and dangerous.
Around Christmas, the Archbishop said that the nativity was a “legend”.
Other recent pronouncements, that the US is the “worst imperialist”.
I will repeat what I’ve previously stated, Rowan Williams should stick to his domain, the soul. (perhaps the sole)
Archbishops aren’t immune to senility with tinges of megalomania.
When the move was afoot in Canada to have “just a little bit” dual law systems in areas of family law, it was a women’s Muslim group that was very active in its defeat.
Can you imagine living in a society where your chances at some degree of equity in areas like marriage, divorce, inheritance, and rights to children could be completely blown away by the imposition of Dark Ages thinking ?
Some of Canada’s multiculturalists thought it wouldn’t be a bad idea, letting “domestic” matters be settled in the Muslim community. Unclog the courts, all kinds of advantages, they said.
Next thing you know, (dis)honor killings in Canada would take a huge jump.
Men who are bullies (you will note) constantly emphasize the control of their women. It is their “proof” of manhood.
The major impetus behind the insistence upon shari’a and the (very) few lines in the Koran that would give it credence are serving the male ego and household management.
In Shari’a law, the man says “I divorce you” and it is done. While a woman can hang around begging courts to turn her loose for years, preventing her from any kind of “new” life. Under shari’a, a woman’s inheritance is half a man’s, her minor children can be removed from her for all time. And so on.
Barbarism, and Rowan Williams’ dissembling little politically correct remarks, sheer ignorance.
At the time of the Reformation Islamic armies had just conquered Hungary and were threatening Germany. In his book On War Against the Turk written in 1529 Luther demonstrated that he had a good understanding of Islam and the threat it posed for all Christians and Christian lands. He understood that in Islamic lands Christians were not allowed to preach or confess Christ. Luther wrote this about the Koran and Islam:
“I have some pieces of Mohammed”s Koran which might be called in German a book of sermons or doctrines of the kind that we call pope”s decretals. When I have time, I must put it into German so that every man may see what a foul and shameful book it is. In the first place, he praises Christ and Mary very much as those who alone were without sin, and yet he believes nothing more of Christ than that he is a holy prophet, like Jeremiah or Jonah, and denies that he is God”s Son and true God. Besides, he does not believe that Christ is the Savior of the world, Who died for our sins, but that He preached to His own time, and completed His work before His death, just like any other prophet. On the other hand, he praises and exalts himself highly and boasts that he has talked with God and the angels, and that since Christ”s office of prophet is now complete, it has been commanded to him to bring the world to his faith and if the world is not willing, to compel it or punish it with the sword; and there is much glorification of the sword in it. Therefore, the Turks think their Mohammed much higher and greater than Christ, for the office of Christ has ended and Mohammed”s office is still in force.
From this anyone can easily observe that Mohammed is a destroyer of our Lord Christ and His kingdom, and if anyone denies concerning Christ, that He is God”s Son and has died for us, and still lives and reigns at the right hand of God, what has he left of Christ? Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Baptism, the Sacrament, Gospel, Faith and all Christian doctrine and life are gone, and there is left, instead of Christ, nothing more than Mohammed with his doctrine of works and especially of the sword. That is the chief doctrine of the Turkish faith in which all abominations, all errors, all devils are piled up in one heap.”
“In the second place, the Turk”s Koran, or creed, teaches him to destroy not only the Christian faith, but also the whole temporal government. His Mohammed, as has been said, commands that ruling is to be done by the sword, and in his Koran the sword is the commonest and noblest work.”
Luther stated that the response to these Islamic assaults on Christian lands was inadequate. Further he believed that it was the responsibility of the Temporal authorities, i.e. the State, to defend Christians and Christian lands and not the responsibility of the Church. But he also made it clear that Christians should fight to defend Christian lands against the Turkish invasions but that they should fight under the banner of the temporal authority, the Emperor, not the Church. In the Battle of Vienna in 1683 in which the Ottoman armies were turned back it was the Polish King Jan Sobieski who led the defense.
Luther had written: ” My advice, therefore, is not to set the armed preparation so low and not to offer our poor Germans to slaughter. If we are not going to make an adequate, honest resistance that will have some staying power, it were far better not to begin a war, but to give up lands and people to the Turk in time, without useless bloodshed, rather than have him win anyhow in an easy battle and with shameful bloodshed, as happened in Hungary with King Lewis. Fighting against the Turk is not like fighting against the King of France, or the Venetians, or the pope; he is a different kind of warrior; he has people and money in abundance; he beat the Sultan twice in succession, and that took people. Why, dear sir, his people are under arms all the time, so that he can quickly bring together three or four hundred thousand men; if we were to cut off a hundred thousand, he would soon be back again with as many men as before. He has staying power.
There is, therefore, nothing at all in trying to meet him with fifty or sixty thousand men unless we have an equal or a greater number in reserve. Only count up his lands, dear sir. He has Greece, Asia, Syria, Egypt, Arabia, etc., that is, he has so many lands that if Spain, France, England, Germany, Italy, Bohemia, Hungary, Poland, and Denmark were all counted together, they would not equal the land he has. Besides, he is master of all of them and commands effective and ready obedience. And, as has been said, they are constantly under arms and are exercised in warfare, so that he has staying power, and can deliver two, three, four battles, one after another, as he showed against the Sultan. This Gog and Magog is a different kind of majesty than our kings and princes.”
It is easy to dismiss the archbishop as a dottering old Lefty, but what he said is a straw in the wind. No, it won’t happen now, but come back in 30 years — when Muslims represent some large part of the population, and their cities are “no-go” areas for the police — and his idea will not seem so foreign. It will be pitched as a way to achieve social “peace” and will be a milepost (apologies to Sayyid Qtub) on the road to dhimmitude. In a self-confident society, the archbishop would be stripped of his office, horsewhipped in the streets, and put on the first boat to Pakistan.
Whereas the Archbishop is the bad news, this smacks of some good news.
Keeping this purveyor of hate from visiting up close and personal with his buddies in the UK.
Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a controversial Muslim cleric who defends suicide attacks, has been refused a visa to enter to the UK after a campaign by David Cameron.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3325439.ece